Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 10/28/2008 7:29 am

Sarah Palin for President in 2012?

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© Getty Images

There’s more than just a few rumors out there that conservatives and Sarah Palin fans are planning for a Sarah Palin Presidential run in 2012.  The thinking among these "Saranistas" is, if McCain loses this year’s election, Palin not only could emerge as the party’s 2012 nominee, but she could be the GOP’s next Ronald Reagan.

In fact, one Republican even called Palin "the new Ronald Reagan."

There’s also a grassroots effort cropping up on the Web to put Palin in the White House in 2012.

A Google search of "Sarah Palin for president" turns up pages of results. Many sites like Palintology.com and palinforpresidentblog.com are championing her candidacy, and there are even some YouTube "ads" out there promoting her 2012 candidacy.

Among the chattering class, the positioning of Sarah as the Republican Party’s standard bearer for the future has already started:

"Win or lose, there is a ready-made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan," Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, told the U.K.’s Sunday Telegraph

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, has said Palin isn’t ready to be president now or then, but he still acknowledged that she likely could be the nominee four years from now. Palin "emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination," he told the Telegraph. "Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."

Frum also told New York magazine in an article for this week’s issue that, "The people who criticize her do so because we have some hope that we could be in contention in 2012, and there’s some risk that she could be the party’s nominee, and she’d probably lose – and even if by some miracle she won, she’d be a terrible president."

Not everyone is so pessimistic about her chances, however.

One key Republican promoting a Palin run in 2012 tells USA Today: "As of today, Palin is the top contender. She clearly has the potential to be a winning top-of-the-ticket candidate: solid character, solid values, fire in the belly, etc. But four years is a long time. Neither [Mitt] Romney, [Mike] Huckabee, or others have the complete package. If Palin spends a bit more time traveling overseas and domestically, broadening her horizons, and wins re-election in Alaska in 2010, she will be the nominee in 2012."

Greg Mueller, who was a senior aide in the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes, told Politico that if John McCain loses the general election to Barack Obama next week, Palin "has absolutely earned a right to run in 2012." He said Palin has given conservatives "hope" and "something to believe in."

But even if McCain only serves one term – Palin could also try for her own bid. By then, she would have had four years of experience as a vice president and would be much more knowledgeable of not just Washington, but the world. If McCain loses, Palin could win re-election in Alaska, raise her national profile by, perhaps, take a leadership position in the Republican Governors Association or the National Governors Association, and better prepare herself in the next four years.

Palin is now trying to break free of her campaign handlers’ constraints that have restricted what she talks about, when, and to whom, since McCain announced his vice presidential pick. Even one McCain insider said the Alaska governor is "playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party.”

Palin has repeatedly stated that she would be more aggressive in making the case against Obama that the McCain campaign has – which has made many conservatives who say McCain has been too soft on Obama even more wild about her future role in the party - while she’s also distanced herself from campaign tactics such as robocalls.

One National Review post written after Palin’s much-anticipated debate against Sen. Joe Biden, said: "She’s a natural saleswoman. She certainly saved her prospects for national office in 2012, if she so chooses. She certainly, my guess is, reenergized the GOP base and independents, centrists, and undecided, if they’re honest with themselves, will conclude that they witnessed an impressive woman tonight."



234 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Linda Mason
Marjorie, with the exception of a biased few who share your antediluvian views, nobody at this site would call you objective.
By Linda Mason on 11/03/2008 9:14 pm
Frannie Em
Carol I believe it is all nuts right now. What are media outlets doing backing candidates? Isn’t that a corruption of the process. I know they have been doing it for years, but it just shows you that there is not objectivity anywhere. Both sides. I don’t know how anyone could be totally objective anyway. Everyone claims they are, and they all get their coworkers to agree, but most people know news organizations are not objective. The problem with what we have today is the power of the Fourth Estate and the hubris and ego with which it dominates our lives, but we let it. There are great journalists out there, but the game has changed so much that it is more about selling a story, than really getting to the bottom of the story and the truth. After the election, someone will decide to take on the task of finding out the truth about the money that Obama has been getting, or they will just sweep it under the rug. There is no transparency there. That is so dangerous for our democratic process. We will lose our freedom over such biased attitudes. Much of the money is not registered, so you can ‘t follow it. Wrong wrong wrong. I do not believe that some of the agencies who are filtering the money in to the Obama campaign are being up front. The problem is, they don’t care to, as if it is a right to deceive the American People in order to beat the ROVIAN repubs. I think that is appalling. The principles and laws must be the same for all for a democratic society to maintain itself. Some of these groups are the ones trumpeting about the “Fairness Doctrine”. They are happy that Obama can buy a 30 minute infomercial on 5 stations. They don’t care about fairness now, so long as it doesn’t get in the way of what they want. The dichotomy of behavior doesn’t give you pause? There is an attitude that “no matter what, we are taking this election.” I was at a Walk for the Cure for Diabetes, and one of people that was in my walking group, was adamant that it was like gorilla warfare, and any means were justifiable to “steal” the election. This guy was a lawyer. Later, he asked someone if they had voted for Bush and they said ‘no’, he said “I am so glad because I ream anyone I hear that has.” Huh? He thinks he has a right to do that to people? Crazy. They take the stand that they are trying to save democracy while all the while just dumping hatred and resentment on people because they have no inner strength to stand on democratic principles. The first truly democratic principle is treat others as you would have others treat you. Basic kindergarten rules. Carol, it may be that after the Pew Report on media bias came out saying that coverage was unbalanced and that there was a positive media bias for Obama, and Obama’s economic plan is finally being taken to task, that now he is being questioned more. It is about time. Hillary tried to do it, but was ignored. The media was already in the tank. I used to scream and yell about the republicans having so much money for campaigns, and all the corruption associated with it. It just keeps going on and on.
By Frannie Em on 10/30/2008 11:54 am
Brooklyn Gal
Frannie, I have always said that the media was biased. Edwards got no coverage, but now I want to slap him across the face because he was my candidate of choice. Then Hillary got disgusting coverage, especially from the NYTimes that first endorsed her and by outlets like Charlie Rose. But the truth is, Hillary didn’t run the best campaign because she thought it was a done deal. Then she made many errors too. Hillary was my second choice until she came out with that sniper attack that never happened and a repeal of the gas tax. All candidates get money in different ways and sooner or later it catches up to them as it did with Stevens in Alaska. McCain’s economic plan is so much of the same old thing, and there is just as much negative reception to his plan. But when Republican media no longer back McCain because of his Palin pick, that is telling. I would have no problem with McCain had it not been for Palin. But in all the time you have stated that you were undecided, I don’t recall you ever once saying anything positive about Obama. I am appalled by everything in this election. But now some accuse me of the “L” word which I am certainly not. I never believed in extreme ideology such as Liberal or Conservative thinking because people need to be able to alter ideology when circumstances change. But when people go to McCain rallies and make those terrible assertions about him and his supporters as not being patriotic, I cringe. Now I have to read on another thread that Obama is selfish for running and that this country isn’t ready for a Black president. Yes, I will cast my vote for Obama for many reasons. I think he is the most intelligent person to come this way in a long while. He knows that he is creating history and that I believe will make him do the right thing for this nation. He will have no problem standing up both the Ls and Cs when it comes to making policy.
By Brooklyn Gal on 10/30/2008 1:17 pm
Frannie Em
Hi Carol, Great post. First, I have said nice things about Obama. More than I have said about McCain. I have said that I believe he is an honorable man and wants to do, what he believes is the right thing for our country. He is also essentially a practical man and not an ideologue, like Bush was, and a few other things. I avoid saying nice things about either of them because for me it is the issues. I prefer principles before personalities, although I get sucked in to the personalities at times. I think they both come from solid positions. I do worry about McCain’s brand of conservatism, I don’t think he is a neo-con, but he is dated. I don’t like the Some of McCain’s economic policies are the throwbacks, but so are Obama’s. Raising the taxes on the rich is what Hoover did and the country tumbled deeper into depression. I do believe that McCain’s idea of opening health insurance to competition across states is a good idea. Schwarzenegger did that with Workers comp and our costs lowered by 75%. It took time, but it happened, and we could then give our employees raises, and more benefits. I pay self employed health insurance for a family of three, which is close to $14,000. If competition lowers that by 75%, then a $5,000 tax credit will pay for health insurance, and I can pick my plan. Lotta if’s, but Obama’s plan is based on a lotta if’s as well, aren’t they all. I think the conservative media has been hard on McCain because he is not another Reagan, nor is he the pre 9/11 McCain. They want a Reagan to give a one-two punch to that young senator. LOL. Well, that isn’t happening, even if he could, LOL. He didn’t get a good momentum going and looks like he was stumbling under all of the Obama pressure. Isn’t as good to look at as Obama, and didn’t have a real clear message - he has had many problems, but he is still standing. No, he hasn’t run the greatest campaign, but he doesn’t have General Electric or George Soros funding his campaigns. I don’t like McCain’s stand on war, but they are both going to have problems getting the guys home. Deals are in the making right now. When Obama was in Iraq he tried to get Maliki to wait to make the deal with the Americans until after the election, he would give Maliki a better deal. He was trying to usurp the authority of the president. That is wrong. Why hasn’t the press taken him to task on it. Nixon tried to do that in Vietnam when he was running and usurp Johnson’s authority. Good ole tricky Dick. So those things are giving me pause. I was on pause about McCain at the beginning of the campaign. If Hillary were against McCain, I would have voted for HIllary. She has the kind of focus I like. I wasn’t for her in the primaries, but I would have voted for her now. Many of Obama’s contributions are on prepaid credit cards so they cannot be traced, therefore who knows where the money is coming from. (Lesley, is 60 Minutes on to this? Is anyone paying attention) If someone else did this, it would be all over the news and there would be hell to pay. Can you imagine? That stuff makes me nervous, not Obama, but the machine that surrounds him, and believes that they can do anything because they have gotten away with it. It gives me pause. The democrats have turned into the republicans by the tactics they use.
By Frannie Em on 10/30/2008 11:20 pm
Star Lawrence
If they don’t win, you betcha I will miss Gov Palin! She was fun to listen to and the clothes were darling. I think she should get to keep them. The others get theirs free from designers…the oppo-proppos get theirs from the stations and networks. If Sen Obama gets elected, remember this: Kool-Aid hangovers are the worst!
By Star Lawrence on 10/31/2008 10:09 am
Fred O.
Well what experience does Obama have,being a Senator for such a short time and staying away from any and all controversial decisions by voting present on issues hardly qualifies him. The biggest part of his career has been spent running for President.What experience does that give him? Palin actually has more experience than Obama if you really check the facts out.
By Fred O. on 10/28/2008 1:34 pm
John G
Fred, I have to say that’s an interesting point. I wasn’t speaking about experience, however. I was speaking about being qualified to be the leader of the free world. Sarah is not now, and will not ever be, qualified to be the President of the United States of America. As for Obama, it’s well documented in these pages that I am a Hillary supporter, and also why I voted for Obama on Oct 6th… the alternative is way too fundamentalist-christian-like for my tastes. Yes, I realize Obama is quite the christian, too. However, I do not feel he’s as sure a bet to try to bring his belief system into my living room as Sarah and/or John are. ALL CALIFORNIANS!!! GET OUT AND VOTE YES ON PROP 2, AND NO ON PROPS 4 AND 8!!!! ☺☻✌
By John G on 10/28/2008 4:01 pm
Linda Mason
Fred—Check you facts on which candidate was present in the Senate when it was in session during this campaign season, and you will see that McNasty (his nickname in the Academy) was AWOL from the Senate almost the whole time. In contrast, Obama returned to Washington whenever the Senate was in session, even though his primary season went down to the last contest! McCain did not attend one session from April until his dramatic — and pointless — return late last September as a campaign stunt!
By Linda Mason on 11/03/2008 9:27 pm
Buh- Bye
wow, what a headline. props to whoever came up with that one. this thread should make it to 1000. :)
By Buh- Bye on 10/28/2008 10:32 am
Lady Gator
My Alias…….Oh Lordy — you are so right! :) I have a great idea — we are all women - right? (Excuse me John) — Women are good at boy-cotting - for those of you in Rio Linda it means —“to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with a person, store, company, to express disapproval of a product —or in this case ANOHER article about Sarah Palin!
By Lady Gator on 10/28/2008 1:51 pm
Frannie Em
Pi For me Palin is Palin and Reagan was Reagan. Palin can stand on her own. Joe Biden’s so called gaffe last week about Obama being tested was, I think, a way to connect Obama to Pres Kennedy. Obama is Obama and Kennedy was Kennedy. Obama can stand on his own.
By Frannie Em on 10/28/2008 2:51 pm
Buh- Bye
Frannie Em, so astute of you. I agree that the Biden gaffe wasn’t a gaffe at all, but a pre-planned statement with intent for the JFK comparison that went awry. And I also feel the same. Let Reagan be Reagan. Let Palin be Palin. Let Obama be Obama. Let Kennedy be Kennedy. Obama is on his second incarnation in this election. At first he was M.L. King (at least in studied speech patterns), then Caroline resurrected her late father in him. Better to let that man be himself. Crafting an image around memories of icons from the past ultimately leads to disappointment.
By Buh- Bye on 10/28/2008 10:00 pm
Frannie Em
Pi I used to tell my husband that when Obama gave his stump speeches he sounded like a preacher at the pulpit, and I think you have hit it on the head with MLK. Then at times he would sound like a professor in a class, lecturing to teach people about the way it should be. He also had a get down with the people thing where he dropped all his g’s on his ings. Then Kennedy myth was then pushed on him. Now he is shouting to get it home. I think you made some excellent points illustrating how he has used his law degree to pick everything apart. I just feel that the average citizen gets lost somewhere in all of the Obama campaign plans. You were right about ageism, sexism, elitism. When that multi-million $$ campaign swooped down to destroy Joe the Plumber, you had to wonder about the intelligence of that. An average citizen asking or speaking truth to power. Speaking truth to power is for anyone with any issue they want to discuss and if you are facing the American public and asking them to make you their president, gotta answer some questions by them. Politico said that from their own random survey about 80% or more reporters were for Obama. That is no surprise, but they have not maintained journalistic integrity. They are destroying their own business out of greed for the next scoop, or to help elect someone instead of letting the people decide.
By Frannie Em on 10/28/2008 11:05 pm
Buh- Bye
yep, it’s all about getting good copy.
By Buh- Bye on 10/29/2008 11:10 am
Star Lawrence
Yeah—-and who paid for Michelle’s Jackie O lookalike clothes in the Wall St Journal—those didn’t come from mail order or Target.
By Star Lawrence on 10/31/2008 10:24 am